Duel Portal March Tournament Banlist [Discussion Thread]

[VampireofDarkness]

Can we not hit every card that people don't like playing against?

 

Instant Fusion isn't a problem unless Noden is taken into account. Thus, ban Noden if you think it's the problem (and it largely is) since nobody is playing Lovecraft.dek. Otherwise Instant Fusion is quite balanced. If Mask Change II interacts poorly (as you seem to think it does) with floaters, then that's the floater's problem and not Mask Change II's. It costs 2 other cards to make a Masked HERO! How would this even require a hit at all? I thought the goal of the banlist was to hit cards that would otherwise define formats, and I wouldn't even run Mask Change II in every deck that ran DARK monsters because it's not always worth the investment; it's certainly worth some consideration in single-attribute decks but never always even a good choice.

 

EDIT: Number 95 makes Mythic Rulers better. I'd like to see what the OCG does with Ptolemaios and it in April, as Mythic Ruler w/ No 95 is vastly superior in the OCG. However, I doubt it's actually good enough to even reach tier 1 and any build with it seems like the deck itself'd get stopped by a decent side deck or some disruption (which people don't seem to run much of).

 

I still think Vanity and Drain should be tried at one first.

Ptolemaios lets you instantly go into Constellarknight Plieades or Diamond, the latter which turns off DARK Decks. Since it can be done with 2 mats, it basically would prevent any DARK Deck here from having ANY effect on the meta whatsoever. I thought i said this before, but I will say it again. I would rather sit out for the tourney than have to deal with constantly getting Diamond'd turn 1 because everyone knows I am a passionate DARK Deck player.

[VampireofDarkness]

Can we not hit every card that people don't like playing against?

 

Instant Fusion isn't a problem unless Noden is taken into account. Thus, ban Noden if you think it's the problem (and it largely is) since nobody is playing Lovecraft.dek. Otherwise Instant Fusion is quite balanced. If Mask Change II interacts poorly (as you seem to think it does) with floaters, then that's the floater's problem and not Mask Change II's. It costs 2 other cards to make a Masked HERO! How would this even require a hit at all? I thought the goal of the banlist was to hit cards that would otherwise define formats, and I wouldn't even run Mask Change II in every deck that ran DARK monsters because it's not always worth the investment; it's certainly worth some consideration in single-attribute decks but never always even a good choice.

 

EDIT: Number 95 makes Mythic Rulers better. I'd like to see what the OCG does with Ptolemaios and it in April, as Mythic Ruler w/ No 95 is vastly superior in the OCG. However, I doubt it's actually good enough to even reach tier 1 and any build with it seems like the deck itself'd get stopped by a decent side deck or some disruption (which people don't seem to run much of).

 

I still think Vanity and Drain should be tried at one first.

 

I SUPPOSE we could wait, but I already have seen 3 Dragon Decks on DP fully capable of making Rank 8s, one of those before a recent typing change was the top Deck of December's tournament. All 3 would/would have benefit off of the summon of Number 95, and thus would wreck with REDMD and the Rulers among other Dragon toys. It just seems, like Rekindling, it's gonna be something continuously brought up

[Darj]

Can we not hit every card that people don't like playing against?

 

Instant Fusion isn't a problem unless Noden is taken into account. Thus, ban Noden if you think it's the problem (and it largely is) since nobody is playing Lovecraft.dek. Otherwise Instant Fusion is quite balanced. If Mask Change II interacts poorly (as you seem to think it does) with floaters, then that's the floater's problem and not Mask Change II's. It costs 2 other cards to make a Masked HERO! How would this even require a hit at all? I thought the goal of the banlist was to hit cards that would otherwise define formats, and I wouldn't even run Mask Change II in every deck that ran DARK monsters because it's not always worth the investment; it's certainly worth some consideration in single-attribute decks but never always even a good choice.

 

It's not that I don't like playing against it. Heck, I have not even faced Law teched in an non-HERO deck.

But I think that "Dark Law for every DARK deck" shouldn't be taken lightly either.

I don't think using floaters to "feed" Mask Change II is really a issue, I just mentioned that said interaction can help with mitigating the cost of the Spell; unless the entire archetype floats (e.g. Shaddolls), it shouldn't be a problem.

And this is precisely why I wanted to discuss it first; I didn't say that I wanted it hit or banned, I just asked for the thoughts from other players.

 

Regarding the hit on Instant Fusion instead of Noden, it is more like following the steps of OCG, who recently Limited it, and most likely had a reason to hit the Spell instead of Noden. Also I would rather hit the card that enables Noden than kill an entire deck (Lovecrafts). Besides, Instant Fusion has been a problem in the past, enabling crazy combos in Karakuris and Inferniities.

[Cirrus]

I acknowledge the power of Ptolemaios, but the entire paragraph other than mentioning Ptolemaios was talking about Number 95.

 

OCG's list is also significantly different from the TCG's. I don't mind if we follow the entirety of the list as a base, actually; OCG allows for much much more diversity and thoughtful play, and feels much more interesting than TCG which is like playing with nerf guns. If it's just because "it's Limited in the OCG so I don't think it should be unlimited here instead of banning Noden", well ... you're negatively affecting a bunch of decks that could play Instant Fusion, like Level 5 LIGHT engines.

 

Instant Fusion was never the problem in Karakuri and Infernity. That's a baseless argument. You could say the same about Double Summon and Emergency Teleport.

[Self-Destruct Button]

I agree with Cirrus, Mask Change II doesn't really need a Hit, at least not from my Experiences. I played it in Sky Conquerors in the Tourney, it ran quite well and was almost never dead, though the Discard and as such the 3-card-investment REALLY hurt a lot at times, especially when you Fusion Summon from the Hand and don't have so much advantage either way. Though I could utilize it perfectly - I mean, Angel of the Sky Conquerors is searchable pretty easily and then you can be like "Hm which Masked Hero do I want?" and make it the relating Attribute you need. I still mostly went minus with Dark Law and Acid wasn't live too much, as 2400 ATK is ridiculously easy to run over given most of the DP Archetypes here can summon their 2,5k+ ED's with ease. The Search-Banish effect kicked off almost every time when I summoned it, but it was killed right afterwards so it wasn't really too rewarding and not too much of a problem for my opponents. Partially because the 3 Card investment kinda restricts you in the usage of other combo parts or backrow, so I think it's pretty balanced. You can be like "Ohmygod, a one-sided macro" and what not, but I think not too many Decks can actually summon it without losing any significant advantage.

[Darj]

Instant Fusion was never the problem in Karakuri and Infernity. That's a baseless argument. You could say the same about Double Summon and Emergency Teleport.

 

Double Summon is a -1 and requires a bit of setup (in this case a monster in the hand), and E-Tele is clearly not as flexible as IF; so no, I don't think the same can be said about them.

It is not only because the OCG did it, but also because of the many combos, sometimes unfair, it enables by providing fodder without spending the often valuable Normal Summon, and pretty much will always be a problem for that reason. Yes, it is not an overpowered nor game-breaking card by itself, but the things it enables sometimes are.

[VampireofDarkness]

Double Summon is a -1 and requires a bit of setup (in this case a monster in the hand), and E-Tele is clearly not as flexible as IF; so no, I don't think the same can be said about them.

It is not only because the OCG did it, but also because of the many combos, sometimes unfair, it enables by providing fodder without spending the often valuable Normal Summon, and pretty much will always be a problem for that reason. Yes, it is not an overpowered nor game-breaking card by itself, but the things it enables sometimes are.

One thing that's not mentioned in either argument I would like to point out. I wouldn't be concerned if there weren't many easily accessible Level 3-4 Tuners around in the DP Meta. However, with that being such, you basically are paying 1000 LP for a Moonlight Rose, Magus, or any other Level 7-9 Synchro. To me at least, this is the main beef I would have with it, Noden would be fine since we can find other ways to prevent FTKs. If we were to only base it on the TCG/OCG cards, I would side with Cirrus, but Nontheless, we have easily droppable Level 3-4 Tuners, so it oughta stay at 1

[Cirrus]

You're still trading 2 cards from the hand, but sure. There are a couple reasons I think Instant Fusion isn't too strong.

 

Aside from Panzer Dragon (which is still a 141 just in a slightly different way), all the monsters you can get with IF have no additional effect other than being a dork to go into ED monsters with. The Psychic monsters that you run in an engine in the main deck can actually have effects as opposed to IF's monsters not doing anything. I would actually argue that IF is not as flexible as E-Tele due to the variety of fodders you can grab with E-Tele being bigger than the variety of fodders that IF can grab (which is generally just a generic monster of the correct Level and Type). For that reason I think the reasoning that "IF allows degenerate combos" for limiting it is completely ridiculous. IF's advantage over E-Tele is that it doesn't reduce MD consistency and it's just a Spell that does what it says on the tin, but E-Tele's advantage over IF is that it grabs more and cooler things (although only for Synchro decks as it can't grab level 4s), it doesn't cost LP, and you can multicast it in the same turn. Cards like E-Tele, Instant Fusion, Spell Striker, and Double Summon all have their place in enabling the existence of actual combo decks, which are speedy, yes! But are not remotely unbeatable or oppressive. Does it matter if it takes 4 or 14 turns for the game to finish if there's a clear reason why you win and lose in either case?

 

What I WILL outline are the strengths of Instant Fusion as well as a legitimate reason for Limiting it. It's a Spell Card that will grab any lower-level Fusion from your ED, which creates a slight design space problem (make sure that everything abusable has the Must be Fusion Summoned with the above materials etc clause). Limiting it creates a slightly different dynamic wherein it becomes a power card, just like Soul Charge at 1, and also opens up design space for lower-level Fusions that do cooler things, just like Noden. I would have accepted anything tangentially related to this line of thought.

 

The banlist is something done by consensus (?), but I would like to see sound reasoning above all else. This was the case with Vanity (where I absolutely do not agree with hitting it with the reasoning provided but am not adamantly against hitting it for another reason), and it is the case here.

[Darj]

To be honest, I didn't bring the "it restricts design" argument because I thought it was obvious, and that you already had it in consideration when you suggested to Limit Noden instead of IF; apparently I was wrong, but it looks like you figured it out by yourself anyways.

Noden itself is the example of how IF can go wrong and be abused. I would have brought Panzer Dragon, but since it merely becomes a 1-for-1 through IF, and a slow one at that, I didn't think it would be a legit example of IF abuse.

[VampireofDarkness]

To be honest, I didn't bring the "it restricts design" argument because I thought it was obvious, and that you already had it in consideration when you suggested to Limit Noden instead of IF; apparently I was wrong, but it looks like you figured it out by yourself anyways.
Noden itself is the example of how IF can go wrong and be abused. I would have brought Panzer Dragon, but since it merely becomes a 1-for-1 through IF, and a slow one at that, I didn't think it would be a legit example of IF abuse.

There is another rather slow but still absolutely hilarious IF abuse method. Bring out Frightfur Chain Sheep, at the EP you get a 28 beater with a once a turn revival. And yeah, with Panzer Dragon you essentially are paying 1000 LP to Scrap Dragon the opponent when you could be making the real Scrap Dragon and taking out a card you actually want to take out, not to mention at convienant timing

[Cirrus]

I completely disagree with the thought that Instant Fusion in its current form is deserving of any kind of hit for the sake of "balance". I thought it was obvious that that was the only legitimate reason for its banning - i.e. player preference - and not some broadly construed iffy argument about how "degenerate" it can possibly be, which is why I vehemently opposed it based on the only reason you mentioned. Occupation of design space doesn't mean that it's broken or even poorly designed, as one of the most important things to do is to take into account existing good cards and make sure your card isn't itself broken in light of that. Noden itself isn't a particularly good example of brilliant design either - I suggested to limit or ban it instead of hitting Instant Fusion to not hit a wide swathe of decks that can use Instant Fusion without giving compensation (Madolche, Karakuri, Level 5 LIGHT / CyDra, et cetera).

[BtanH]

Honestly, one of the biggest drawbacks about running IF is that you lose out on Extra deck space. Those 15 cards are not enough :/

[Maeriberii Haan]

Agreed on the Noden hit since the rest of the lovecraft cards are to a sense, irrelevant here anyway.

 

Also, since people are talking about it, what if we use the OCG banlist as a base to start with in here?

[Self-Destruct Button]

Harpies Feather Duster, CED, Crush Card... with or without Erratas? And Duster remains banned, yes?

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Agreed on the Noden hit since the rest of the lovecraft cards are to a sense, irrelevant here anyway.

 

Also, since people are talking about it, what if we use the OCG banlist as a base to start with in here?

We could just combine the two later on if there are certain cards that OCG has, but cause lots of crap in TCG and vice versa.

But sounds fine.

 

@SDB: Let's assume with erratas, and yeah Duster should stay banned.

Original copies stay banned also, like they've always been.

 

On a sidenote, we could edit some of the current banned cards on our own, and allow their usage here.

However, we'd all have to agree on what changes those would be.

[Maeriberii Haan]

Let's not do erratas of our own to Konami's card.

 

it'll just make things ridiculously hectic and confusing.

 

ALso, if we're talking OCG....

 

Shock master. Discuss.

[Self-Destruct Button]

Burn all copies of Shock Master and pretend it never existed!

aka ban plz, it's worse than a floodgate and good against every single deck there ever is.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Considering the existence of certain Decks on DP that can spam the 3 mats easily, let's keep it banned. 

Like some of the stuff that got mentioned in the design guide, 16 is by definition, a floodgate.

[Atypical-Abbie]

Question, what's with the big old asterisks for Book of Moon and One for One? And why are they on there anyway? They are already at those positions, so why include them?

[Self-Destruct Button]

Because they previously were displayed as unlimited on DP.

[VampireofDarkness]

I know we aren't about actually bringing cards back, but if we are using OCG banlist and the card is otherwise irrelevant, can Destiny Hero - Malicious go to 3? It's sort of selfish admittingly, but I have been working on D Hero support, and that would strongly help

[Darj]

Agreed on the Noden hit since the rest of the lovecraft cards are to a sense, irrelevant here anyway.

 

Also, since people are talking about it, what if we use the OCG banlist as a base to start with in here?

 

Well, I'm not a fan of hitting Noden because it would hurt an entire archetype that apparently is still growing; it's like killing it before giving it the chance to shine. But it is true that it is irrelevant in DP, and hitting IF would equally hurt said Lovecraft deck anyways. Plus if one of the goals is more deck diversity, hitting IF would have an stronger impact on that regard (by removing a combo piece from the multiple decks that use it) than hitting Noden.

 

So, I agree on the Noden hit, but I'm still not sure if the real problem card is being addressed.

Sure, IF --> Noden is nasty, but without IF Noden doesn't do much outside of its own deck.

Meanwhile, IF is a card that has always been there, enabling all sort of combos and plays:

IF --> Cyber Saurus enabled Bureido and contributed to Karakuri OTKs.

It was there in Infernities as well, generating some Level4 to make Lavalval Chain or something and further sustaining their unfair loop.

It also enabled Naturia Synchros back when they were actually threatening.

My point is that IF enables all kind of combos. Some of them are cute but not really big, others are amazing (e.g, Madolche, LIGHT5 engine for Pleaides/Nova-->Infinity), but unfortunately others are unfair, or were unfair at some point (e.g. Infernity and arguably Karakuri and their OTK). And while it's true that for the latter the fault resides on the rest of the cards in the combo and/or on the "final product", so to speak, IF is still a "backstage player" that contributes to those combos. Also, in before someone drops the "other cards like CyDra, Wind Jammer, Ghost Ship, E-Tele engine, Spell Striker, Kagetokage, etc., or even monster Traps such as Swamp Mirrorer, can do the same as IF", yes, that's true, but IF certainly is more flexible and/or practical than any of those, in exchange of 1k LP and 2~3 spaces in the ED, which really isn't a big cost when it can win the game. At worst, having both IF and the aforementioned combo cards allows a deck to run more "copies" of said combo cards, making their plays more consistent; again, sometimes this is fine but not great, sometimes it is amazing, but other times is unfair by turning OTKs, loops and other abusive combos more consistent.

As for the "compensation" argument, really, if the combos that IF enables are unfair, I don't think they need to be compensated if they were to lose IF. The less abusive combos/decks may not deserve the hit, yes, but then again, they still have Kagetokage, Spell Stiker, etc. to sustain their combos.

 

Then add to this the design restrictions already explained by Cirrus: Level5 or lower Fusions can't be too good without the "Must be Fusion Summoned with the above materials" or similar restrictions. On the other hand, Limiting IF would turn it into more of a power card, and players would be able to create better Level5 or lower fusions, perhaps as good as Noden, knowing that they won't we abused that easily.

 

 

By the way, I don't think E-Tele as an engine (I mean, not taking in consideration its searching properties in Psychic decks, or decks where it is a power card such as Gusto/Pirika) is more flexible than IF:

E-Tele only has about 5 good targets (Krebons, Psychic Jumper and Commander, Re-Cover and the Yuki Usagi/Snow Bunny) and even if some of them they have cool effects, most of them don't do much, if anything at all, when summoned through E-Tele anyways, and you only want them for their Level and Attribute (just like the IF targets); yes, the monsters can do something when you draw them, but usually you don't want to see them in the hand and they will require of your Normal Summon to be played, sometimes slowing your game down (I believe the only exception is Snow Bunny, because its effect can be good). But IF doesn't suffer from this because its targets are in the ED. Then, it is only effective at making Synchros, and takes more MD space than IF.

Meanwhile IF has more applications by providing a wide array of monsters with varying types, Levels and attributes for different needs, plus it enables Xyz Summons and even Synchro Summons in decks with Tuners.

 

 

As for the OCG-based banlist, well, I'm not really familiar with it so I don't know what to expect, but sure, I wouldn't mind giving it a try. I suspect things could get more chaotic with the comeback of backrow, floodgates AND Heavy/Duster, but curious to see how things would work out.